Euan
Like you I have always been impressed by our being 3000 feet below the arctic - the difference between a world record wheat yield (Haddington, E Lothian) and no arable farming is less than ~1000 ft in our part of Europe.
Thanks for the charts. To me they reinforce the message of just how sensitive climate is to persistent relatively very small forcing. We know that already of course, because of cycling between glacial and interglacial. I have also long been interested in biological reinforcement of these climate cycles - the advance or retreat of boreal forests affect on northern hemisphere albedo being a case in point. It seems reasonable to me prima facie to separate out from (e.g. Mann et al) and compare the study of temperature series represented by biological proxies with other signals of past temperature. The variation then seen in your charts is very interesting, and indicates boundaries of uncertainty. (It does occur to me that biological proxies might cycle for unknown reasons with cosmic background.)
Although arctic summer sea ice retreated a record amount as recently as 2007 (comparison with 2008 at http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ) I would agree that it is too early to tell whether the trend to extreme summer melt will be maintained over the next decade or so.
Phil

What I find most interesting is what sort of temps we will record in the next couple of years with a slow down in the world economy.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the concept of global dimming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Is it possible that the stabilizing of the temperature since '98 could be proportionate to the amount of increased particulate from rising Chindia? Does a global economic collapse heat things up?

I guess we'll find out.

Too bad we only have one test subject.

Little darling, I feel that ice is slowly melting
Little darling, it seems like years since it's been clear
Here comes the sun, here comes the sun,
and I say it's all right
It's all right

Why Earth's climate seems linked to cosmic ray activity in this way is uncertain but several quite reasonable hypotheses have been put forward but which require considerable amounts of further research.

Is there any REAL scientific explanation why the decrease in solar MAGNETIC flux as shown by a period of minimal sunspot activity would caused the Ice Age? (The earth is warmed by very regular radiative heat transfer not magnetism or cosmic rays.)

There's no physical mechanism for such GW denier type nonsense.

The explanation is generally that volcanic activity caused it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The Maunder Minimum and Little Ice Age is just a coincidence.

First - There is little change in your 'cosmic ray' graph from 1750 to present, suprising given the drastic tempertature changes. The graphs also conviently ends before the present day with temperatures going even higher. I also don't understand why you prefer Northern Hemisphere tempoeratures (Moberg 2005) to Global ones.. or just use a more recent temperature reconstruction. Mann 1998 is quite out of date now.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

Second - You may find data 'persuasive' but I'd like to see the statistical analysis. Is this a significant relationship? Sun-climate influence hypotheses have a long history of slipping away when rigorous analysis is applied, unfortunately.

Third - Why are the 10Be ratios different in the North and South poles? Anything to do with fractionation of isotopes due to precipitation differences (a well established effect)? Isotope ratios track climate patterns as well, making such reconstructions trecherous.

Fourth - Are you saying that CO2 levels have no influence on climate? If so, there is a HUGE amount of paleoclimatology that needs re-writing..

Now, this is a test. Can you engage on the above points and respond in a civilised manner, or will you ignore them or respond with abuse (accusations of following the herd, being some sort of ideologue, etc.)?

Problem is that this theory is falling apart against the modern instrumental record:

Solar and heliospheric observations for recent decades compared with global
mean temperature data. (a) The international sunspot number, R, compiled by the World Data
Centre (WDC) for the Sunspot Index, Brussels, Belgium. (b) The open solar flux FS derived from
the radial component of the interplanetary magnetic field, taken from the OMNI2 composite
dataset compiled by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre (GSFC), USA. (c) The neutron count
rate C due to cosmic rays of rigidity of above 3 GV, recorded by the Climax neutron monitor and
distributed via WDC-A, Boulder, USA. (d ) The TSI composite compiled by the World Radiation
Centre, PMOD Davos, Switzerland. (e) The GISS analysis of the global mean surface air
temperature anomaly DT (with respect to the mean for 1951–1980), compiled by GSFC, primarily
from meteorological station data. The black lines are monthly means and in (d ) daily values are
also shown in grey. A thin horizontal line at TSI of 1365.3WmK2 has been drawn in (d) to
highlight that values in the recent solar minimum have fallen below the minima of near
1365.5WmK2 seen during both the previous two solar minima

Peak ion pair values produced by GCR are between 30 and 40 per cubic centimeter and occur above the extratropical tropopause. Even though GCR are high energy particles they still get focused into the geomagnetic polar caps. There are less than 10 ion pairs per cc in the upper tropical troposphere. There are less than 10 ion pairs per cc below 4 km falling to less than 1 at the surface. (Usoskin et al. have a 3D climatology of GCR.)

Cloud condensation nuclei formation from GCR ionization via water cluster ion formation has been proposed as a link between GCR and climate. CCN above the tropopause will help cirrus cloud formation which act as infrared traps and transmit visible band solar radiation so in this case GCR will increase warming. GCR below 5 km have the potential to affect low altitude cloud formation (which then could produce and albedo driven cooling) but then there are vastly more (at least an order of magnitude) CCN of other types in the lower troposphere. But CCN in the lowermost stratosphere are a different matter since the air is coming from above in the extratropics and is nearly devoid of tropospheric particulate matter. Of course it will have sulfate aerosols formed in situ from SO2 in the stratosphere and will have a component of meteorite dust and smoke particles.

So, the most likely impact of GCR on cloud formation would be in the extratropical tropopause region. Then it should be producing a warming trend via infrared trapping but the above plot shows a period of cooling during the highest GCR fluxes.

Another process by which GCR can impact the troposphere is via NOx formation from ionization. NOx in the troposphere contributes to ozone formation (unlike the stratosphere where it acts to catalytically destroy it). Ozone is a greenhouse gas. So higher GCR should be producing warming.

What the above two figures demonstrate is that correlation is not causation. In this case, it is hard to argue that the limited time period comparison between two varying timeseries is showing something other than coincidental overlap of two troughs.

Euan, please. How you manage to lose your logical underpinnings when you go off on Climate Change I will never know.

1. You are using a three year-old chart that does not take into account much more recent work, e.g. the updated work from Mann, et al. this year. Avoiding the most recent data because it disrupts your world view has no place in legitimate debate.

2. The claim is not "the last thousand years," it is at least the last thousand years.

3. The comparison is not of the avg. for the period of a thousand years, as you imply, but is of averages for any given year, so your point is meaningless.

4. It's all about trends, not specific data points. (How can you write anything that would ignore this?) E.g.: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/warming_goes_on.html

5. These might interest you about Mann, et al.'s previous paper. (Given the 2008 paper is much improved, your position looks quite untenable.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/temperaturevariati...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-rega...

6.

The geomagnetic activity of the Sun has recently become reduced and very quiet. Sunspot cycle 24 is really struggling to get underway and these are solar conditions that may resemble those that eventually led to the LIA. Personally I find these circumstances quite worrying given the latitude where I stay.

Unfortunately, there is no credible work showing the short-term solar cycles have a significant effect on climate. Also, I wasn't aware it had been established the LIA was caused by solar cycles. Got a link?

Further, above you dismiss a claim because, as far as I can tell from your comments, it is too sweeping a claim. You do so while providing nothing but your opinion that Mann, et al., are wrong and can be dismissed. (Along with an appeal to authority stating tens of thousands of scientists disagree. Newsflash: there are MILLIONS of scientists on the planet. Do the math.) Yet, you give credence to solar influence over short time spans even though no credible evidence exists. Is this not just a tad dishonest?

7. The use of pejoratives - "from the likes of" - proves you are biased. (Yes, I do the same. The science demands it. There is no credible argument against AGW. None. I repeat my challenge: show me ONE credible, peer-reviewed paper that has not already been eviscerated.) I therefore did a little search on Henrik and came up with this take from RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-t...

Enough. You will soon enough regret your stance. I already do.

The AGS estimate is here, and includes the following:

The Energy Resources Conservation Board estimates there are 91 billion tonnes of coal resources at depth suitable for mining. There is an additional 2 trillion tonnes of coal at depth in the Alberta Plains that may be suited for coal bed methane (CBM) exploration

The 25m figure appears to be cumulate thickness that might be the total of many thin seams, over 70 to 120m, at depths to 2800m. There is no way this can be mined using known methods and Canadians.

I worked in the coal industry for a few years, and was amazed how little modern technology finds its way into underground mining. This has been due to the cyclical coal prices, which make miners wary of buying expensive new equipment, and safety concerns - they like to stay with what they know. This is sure to change eventually, probably through use of remote mining or in-situ gasification.

BTW, the largest known coalfield is at the Alaska North Slope, and extends under the arctic ocean. The planned pipeline will probably start with the natural gas, then operate for many more years moving syngas.

You are right. There is more than enough coal to fry the planet.

Lengould - thanks for reminding me about in-situ gasification of coal. A few comments:

1. You make the point well that these massive coal resources are not coal reserves in the conventional mining context since they are too deep for surface mining techniques and too low grade for deep mining.

2. We need to remember that energy flows (and consequent CO2 emissions) are related to rates of extraction - that applies for both oil and coal. In the case of coal we have some truly gigantic high grade surface deposits which are being mined as fast as we can mine them. Once these are gone we are in deep trouble since it will be very difficult to replace energy flows from deep low grade deposits of the type you mention here.

3. Are you able to comment on ERoEI for in-situ gasification techniques and on the recovery factors - how much of the underground coal can be produced in this way? I am not being flippant here. I suspect the ERoEI may be low owing to large energy inputs and that recovery will be low - but I don't know.

4. How much of existing global FF energy production comes from in-situ gasification? Is it scalable?

I Googled "coal in situ gasification" and got this link:

http://www.alternatefuelsworld.com/in-situ-coal.html

It is interesting to note that a % of combustible gas produced is Hydrogen - depending upon the techniques that are used.

The bit you leave out is that CO2 capture and sequestration is very much part of the plan where the development of in situ gasification is concerned:-

http://www.ergoexergy.com/eucg.htm

Interesting how easily some people loose their calm on this issue.

"It is not the size of the barrel, it's the size of the tap." I wait to hear how that resource can be put online in time to avoid the CO2 emissions peak by 2020.

One argument you didn't come forward with from the anti-AGW camp is that much of the warming we will experience has less to do with much higher levels of C02 than it does with stabilization of the climate from emissions already emitted. I did a quick search and found one graph that I will have to note as notional for this discussion;

I was prepared to be given a very hard time indeed but by in large the response was very muted and in the main were supportive.

A number of reasons for that, including;

- less traffic at this site right now (a number of reasons for that, too)
- the day is still quite young in other parts of the world
- climate change was not the main thrust of the article
- people who have provide serious counterpoint to you on this subject in the past may assume (rightly or wrongly) that further information won't make a difference with you

Its possible that the "public" at large are now less secure in their past belief systems than they were a few months ago.

Such a tiny peephole into the opinion of the "public at large" hardly allows such a conclusion to be considered valid. Such a comment from you is not conducive to gaining support for your overall analytic approach and conclusions. People may simply choose to let you have your belief system, without regard to studies (etc, etc) that push, for example, the cosmic ray theory off the scope of substantive scientific findings. You've arbitrarily chosen 1998 as your starting point for the "current" trend, though if you chose 1997 or 1999, for example, your "trend" would vanish. So based on such selective data mining and apparent unawareness of effective counter arguments to your other points, your information Climate Change can easily be set aside, and judging from the response, is. The achilles heel of this site IMMHO, that detracts from the mission of sounding the alarm about Peak Oil, is the majority editorial stance on AGW.

OTOH, your information on the dire issues with regard to energy sources is in large part effective in its communication of the problem. Your reliance on nuclear as the primary solution ignores its own potentially mid term resource limitations, so your drawing board is in need of revisitation, especially with the apparent complete exclusion of resources such as geothermal power.

One on global U reserves - which I find I am still unable to answer - enough U for 50 years or 500 years, I don't know.

What, seriously? After looking at the Rossing mine data before even getting into tailing enrichment and reprocessing?